Crystal Skull is, in my somewhat minority opinion, the best of the sequels...

Click to expand...

Why?

Click to expand...

Why not?

Not that I share his opinion about the film, but people don't always have to defend their tastes, positive or negative.

Click to expand...

Indeed they don't, but in a thread debating the relative merits of two - and by extension all four - films in a series, offering an opinion alone doesn't help further the discussion all that much.

In this particular case, as Lonemagpie himself says, his opinion is very much in the minority, and objectively speaking an explanation of it could make for a valuable contribution and add further interest to the debate. Personally speaking I'd love to read an intelligent, well-reasoned defence of Crystal Skull as the best of the sequels. I almost certainly wouldn't agree with it, but I would welcome the chance to have my point-of-view challenged.

I certainly don't think it's the best of the sequels, but I do think it's about as good as 'Last Crusade.'

The thing about Skull though, is that it's extremely silly, and a lot of people aren't willing to look past that. Which is fine, this is a similar criticism people had of "Last Crusade" for years when it was just a trilogy. I would never argue that 'Skull' is not silly as well, I think it's probably sillier than 'Crusade.' But the movie works for me, the look at an "over the hill" Indy, the introduction of his son, and Russians as the villains. I also think the jungle chase is just as good as any of the other major chase sequences from the other films, the only reason it gets hated on is because the excessive use of CGI.

There are parts that I do think go a little too far: falling down the three successive waterfalls stretches credibility a bit far for me, and I've been particularly enamored with the opening, I feel it goes on and on until the action breaks out, but once it does it turns into a fun little set piece that ends with (the infamous) nuking the fridge, which I never had a problem with myself.

Crystal Skull is, in my somewhat minority opinion, the best of the sequels...

Click to expand...

Why?

Click to expand...

I like that it addresses the fact that Indy - and Ford - is older, that it calls back to Raiders in so many ways, and I actually find that the alien element works as thematic continuation of the religious-stuff-as-macguffin in an original way that appeals, because I know that there were a lot of religions about "space brothers" founded in that period. I like the way they handled Marcus being gone as well, since Denholm Elliot had died in the meantime.

It's not as racist as Temple Of Doom (which in any case is actually a prequel, not a sequel) and doesn't steal all its best scenes from other movies the way Last Crusade does.

It has flaws, sure (there never was an ancient legend about 13 crystal skulls - that bollocks actually dates to a German paperback published in 1975, and there's the fridge thing), but so do all the movies in the series.

And it made me *so* want to see some books or comics or games covering Indy's adventures in the OSS during WW2...

Oh, also, I don't get the hate for Shia LaBeouf. He's OK in it, does what's required... Nothing special, nothing awful - I don't get it.

Also, I always get baffled by people who say "I hate nuking the fridge- they should have used the Darabont script instead." Cos I always wonder "Have you read it?" cos that's the draft that introduced nuking the fridge...

Crystal Skull is, in my somewhat minority opinion, the best of the sequels...

Click to expand...

Why?

Click to expand...

I like that it addresses the fact that Indy - and Ford - is older, that it calls back to Raiders in so many ways, and I actually find that the alien element works as thematic continuation of the religious-stuff-as-macguffin in an original way that appeals, because I know that there were a lot of religions about "space brothers" founded in that period. I like the way they handled Marcus being gone as well, since Denholm Elliot had died in the meantime.

It's not as racist as Temple Of Doom (which in any case is actually a prequel, not a sequel) and doesn't steal all its best scenes from other movies the way Last Crusade does.

It has flaws, sure (there never was an ancient legend about 13 crystal skulls - that bollocks actually dates to a German paperback published in 1975, and there's the fridge thing), but so do all the movies in the series.

And it made me *so* want to see some books or comics or games covering Indy's adventures in the OSS during WW2...

Oh, also, I don't get the hate for Shia LaBeouf. He's OK in it, does what's required... Nothing special, nothing awful - I don't get it.

Also, I always get baffled by people who say "I hate nuking the fridge- they should have used the Darabont script instead." Cos I always wonder "Have you read it?" cos that's the draft that introduced nuking the fridge...

Click to expand...

I would echo a lot of this. Crystal Skull was a fun movie and as enjoyable as Last Crusade. Also, I was very happy to have Marion Ravenwood back. Like Indy, she was older, not as fast as she used to be but still able to hold her own.

I think Crystal Skull would benefit greatly if the entire sequence involving CGI jeeps, monkeys, ants, trees, and waterfalls were replaced. That whole part was just appalling to watch. I can't tell you for sure why that over-the-top sequence is such a dealbreaker for me but the nuke the fridge moment or the raft falling from the plane in ToD are not, but it just is. The nuke the fridge moment, for all its ridiculousness, was still cool and ended on the iconic Indy pose in front of the mushroom cloud, so I guess that's why I'm more forgiving of it.

Obviously replacing Nazis with Russians was a necessity given the timeline, and it was a good choice, but try as I might, thematically the alien plot just doesn't seem to fit Indy's world, even as you update it to the 50s where UFO stories were all the rage. I can appreciate wanting to break loose from the religious/magic artifact angle (although there was still a little of that), but that's what the Indy movies are to me. Obviously YMMV.

Chia LaBeef just isn't anywhere on the scale of comparison to Harrison Ford as a compelling action star.

Ultimately, Crystal Skull has some enjoyable moments, mostly revolving around revisiting old characters and doing callbacks to the earlier films, but it's not even in the same league as Raiders or the first trilogy at all, IMO, not even Temple of Doom.

^^^I do feel Shia swinging on the vines with the monkeys is a bit silly, but for me, the rest of the jungle chase works. It's fun, and I remember having a huge grin on my face during the thing...well during the whole movie actually.

But I just loved that chase. Probably because the notion of everyone jumping from vehicle to vehicle with little or no trouble hearkened back to the old fashioned swashbucklers where it was more about the spectacle of the sequence than whether or not is was physically possible.

While I would never argue that those who were disappointed by the film are in any way wrong, I wonder if the opinions wouldn't be as severe were this not the final film in the series. I remember I was pretty indifferent towards Rocky V for the longest time, especially since I felt it was a crummy way to end the series. But once 'Rocky Balboa' came out I took another look at Rocky V (as just another film and not the finale) and found it more enjoyable.

But at the time Crystal Skull came out, there wasn't any indication that it was the final film in the series. In fact, all the talk at the time pointed to a new series of films with Shiny LePew taking over the acting lead and Ford taking on a secondary role. So, I don't think that can adequately explain the dislike the film receives. Hell, technically they can still bring it back again if they want, but that's pretty unlikely at this point.

But at the time Crystal Skull came out, there wasn't any indication that it was the final film in the series. In fact, all the talk at the time pointed to a new series of films with Shiny LePew taking over the acting lead and Ford taking on a secondary role. So, I don't think that can adequately explain the dislike the film receives. Hell, technically they can still bring it back again if they want, but that's pretty unlikely at this point.

Click to expand...

Point taken. I also think the fact that it took 19 years to come out built it up too much in some people's minds.

Had this come out four or five years after 'Crusade' and assuming it had the exact same script, I think it would be received a little better*

*This is ignoring the fact that had the film came out so close to 'Crusade' the time period would probably have been closer to the forties.

What a scintillating contribution. Your well-reasoned and articulate post has brought up an issue of key importance to this discussion. Thank you.

However, I would submit that since 3 of the 4 films were originally presented as Indiana Jonesand the ______________, that it is not such a big leap to give Raiders a "the", when dropping "Indiana Jones and" for list purposes in a post on a bbs.

It has flaws, sure (there never was an ancient legend about 13 crystal skulls - that bollocks actually dates to a German paperback published in 1975, and there's the fridge thing), but so do all the movies in the series.

Click to expand...

Yeah it's all pretty silly, but at least the religious themes of the other movies have some real weight and history and culture importance behind them. There's something really deep and primal about ancient religion and the supernatural, which makes it much easier to buy into as possibly being real.

Unlike this cheesy "Ancient Alien" nonsense that only really got started in the last 60 years or so, and which has no real history behind it at all.

It has flaws, sure (there never was an ancient legend about 13 crystal skulls - that bollocks actually dates to a German paperback published in 1975, and there's the fridge thing), but so do all the movies in the series.

Click to expand...

Yeah it's all pretty silly, but at least the religious themes of the other movies have some real weight and history and culture importance behind them. There's something really deep and primal about ancient religion and the supernatural, which makes it much easier to buy into as possibly being real.

Unlike this cheesy "Ancient Alien" nonsense that only really got started in the last 60 years or so, and which has no real history behind it at all.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that stuff started in the 50s, so IMO it gives the flick another element of a 50s pulp vibe.

The cinematography and effects make this film worse than it is. The second half of the film is so over the top (and at the same time the effects are horribly obvious) that it took me out of the film many many times. The car chase in the jungle and the Tarzan swinging, holy crap.

I don't have anything against them sword fighting while cars drive through the jungle, I also don't have anything against Shia doing the Tarzan thing, but those scenes look so bad, I can't rewatch it without cringing.